If a substance comes to Earth from a planet 90 million light years away, how old is it? Forget about how fast it gets here. Let's say the Aliens can
make the trip in 8 hours? Is it 90 million years old because it came from 90 million light years away?

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
If a substance comes to Earth from a planet 90 million light years away, how old is it? Forget about how fast it gets here. Let's say the Aliens can
make the trip in 8 hours? Is it 90 million years old because it came from 90 million light years away?

Seems if it's 90 million years old because it came from 90 million light years away, then the aliens and the spacecraft would also have to be 90
million years old.

In fact, a number of the objects Bill studied were completely inexplicable. The implant that is in my left ear has been found to be a piece of
biotechnology that operates by totally unknown means.

Good post. This quote from Strieber is quite interesting. If 'doctors' are unable to remove it, how have they deduced it's active biotechnology?
Even assuming there's something there at all, how can they rule out the more probable explanation of 'foreign body.' For example, witnesses and
victims of RTAs can discover small particles of glass and metal shrapnel years later.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
This month they had an interesting interview on Dreamland about implants. Scientific proof that the Isotopes of the material tested is 90 million
years older than the material in our solar system.

Thanks for posting this interview Doctor Smith.

Originally posted by Ahmose
it's true,
these materials don't even come from this Sol system.

Here is a really good (and kind of lengthy) conference with Dr. Roger Leir~

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
This month they had an interesting interview on Dreamland about implants. Scientific proof that the Isotopes of the material tested is 90 million
years older than the material in our solar system.

I tried to listen to the broadcast but couldn't go past the first 5 minutes and even those 5 minutes were difficult to digest. When a figure such as
the "90 million years" is thrown out I start to lose interest.

Of course such things are difficult to digest, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong, because they did not come to that conclusion over just one
night, they come to it after testing that by them claimed implant by using all the available necessary scientific equipment.

Originally posted by The Shrike
No one can make such a statement and be taken seriously.

Why not, there is nothing wrong with that, it’s been and still is done by so many other scientists to.

For instance, how do you think they figured out the supposed age of our planet, Moon, solar system, and universe and on and on?

They used the same kind of scientific equipment for that, so if you claim that that "90 million years" claim is impossible and/or absolutely wrong
then it is also very possible that all those other claims are also wrong.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Scientific proof is not some by-product taken lightly. Let's see the material published in peer-reviewed publications and let's see "real"
scientists get involved and see what kind of results they come up with. I'll wait.

How did you come to the conclusion that they did take that investigation lightly?

And what kind of "real" scientists must be involved then in cases like this?

Did you listen to the credentials of that “Doctor Smith” which is if I am not mistaken a pseudonym, and I think definitely not without reason?

I have read the report. I don't know anything about material science but the background information seems very unfitting for a scientific paper if
you ask me.

Mr. John Smith is in his 40’s, and is married with 3 children. The subject has a strong technical background, and is currently a researcher
in the Materials Science field.

Why this obvious attempt to establish Smith's credibility?

The subject has had a lifelong history of UFO sightings, and missing time experiences.

How is this relevant to the analysis?

One of the puncture wounds in the toe was found to fluoresce green under ultraviolet (UV) illumination.

Who shines UV-light on a wound? Is this normal medical practice?

Gaussmeter, and radio frequency analyzer (RF) tests were done on the object, on August 21, 2008, by Dr. Leir, at his Thousand Oaks office,
while it was still in Mr. Smith’s body. These tests indicated that the object was emitting radio waves in the Gigahertz, Megahertz, and Extremely
Low Frequency (ELF) bands. The object also generated a magnetic field of > 10 mGauss.

Again, is this normal medical practice?

Mr. Smith stated that after the object was removed, there was a definite, but subtle change in his mood and thought processes, and that he felt
more like his “old self”.

This is anecdotal and has no place in a serious analysis of any kind.

After reading the report it is obvious to me that it is not objective and submitting it for peer-review would be a waste of time.

I have read the report. I don't know anything about material science but the background information seems very unfitting for a scientific paper if
you ask me.

And why is that?

Mr. John Smith is in his 40’s, and is married with 3 children. The subject has a strong technical background, and is currently a researcher in the
Materials Science field. Why this obvious attempt to establish Smith's credibility?

Perfectly normal to establish credibility. Would it be better in your eyes if he was an escaped convict instead of a normal family man with a
technical background?

The subject has had a lifelong history of UFO sightings, and missing time experiences. How is this relevant to the analysis?

Could it be because he remembers the exact day he received the implant from the aliens that abducted him?

One of the puncture wounds in the toe was found to fluoresce green under ultraviolet (UV) illumination. Who shines UV-light on a wound? Is this
normal medical practice?

If you're looking for foreign objects in the body ultra violet light would likely be an excellent contrasting tool.

Gaussmeter, and radio frequency analyzer (RF) tests were done on the object, on August 21, 2008, by Dr. Leir, at his Thousand Oaks office, while it
was still in Mr. Smith’s body. These tests indicated that the object was emitting radio waves in the Gigahertz, Megahertz, and Extremely Low
Frequency (ELF) bands. The object also generated a magnetic field of > 10 mGauss. Again, is this normal medical practice?

Who says this is normal? This highly professional surgeon is researching mysterious foreign implants from an unknown origin.

Mr. Smith stated that after the object was removed, there was a definite, but subtle change in his mood and thought processes, and that he felt more
like his “old self”. This is anecdotal and has no place in a serious analysis of any kind.

I guess in your eyes, a murder witness in a trial would be anecdotal and would have no place for a serious analysis of any kind.

After reading the report it is obvious to me that it is not objective and submitting it for peer-review would be a waste of time.

In your first sentence you stated

I don't know anything about material science

So should we be listening to your opinion on the credibility of a scientific report?

What is the subject of study here? Is it the man or is it the object itself? Note I call it object not implant. If it is the object then the rest is
irrelevant to the study. It does not matter that the man has seen UFOs or has had weird experiences. It does not even matter that the object came from
the mans toe. None of that stuff matters to material science, throw it out.

In the Discussion I found this

This could indicate that the material is not only extraterrestrial, but may originate from a different solar system than our own. The point of
origin of the sample material may perhaps lie nearer the center of our galaxy, where supernovae are more common.

Because of this observation, the observation that the inclusions appear to be artificially shaped nano-components, and the fact that the
complete object was giving off radio signals, before removal, the conclusion is inescapable that the object the sample came from is a manufactured
item, which was made using extraterrestrial materials, by an organization possessing a high degree of technological sophistication.

Do you call this objective? It seems to me that somebody had their mind made up even before doing the study. This is pseudo-science. Note that I am
not talking about the analysis itself but the framework around it.

This is from the Conclusions

7. The inclusions of the non-metallic phase have unusual shapes, which suggest artificiality, and functionality. This, along with the fact that the
object was giving off radio signals, before removal, strongly indicates that this is a manufactured, nanotechnological device, which was inserted in
patient Smith for a definite purpose.

8. The function of the device cannot be determined with certainty from the available data, and the device may have had multiple functions and
missions. It is likely, however, that two of its functions had to do with monitoring of the physiological state of Mr. Smith’s body, and mood/mind
control.

What is the subject of study here? Is it the man or is it the object itself? Note I call it object not implant. If it is the object then the rest is
irrelevant to the study. It does not matter that the man has seen UFOs or has had weird experiences. It does not even matter that the object came from
the mans toe. None of that stuff matters to material science, throw it out.

For a laugh. According to your logic. If someone gets killed by a bullet it doesn't matter where it came from. Who fired it. It's all about the
bullet and we should all just put our blinders on and ignore any other evidence.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
For a laugh. According to your logic. If someone gets killed by a bullet it doesn't matter where it came from. Who fired it. It's all about the
bullet and we should all just put our blinders on and ignore any other evidence.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
For a laugh. According to your logic. If someone gets killed by a bullet it doesn't matter where it came from. Who fired it. It's all about the
bullet and we should all just put our blinders on and ignore any other evidence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.